A Year of Crisis, Revisited | Hubert Jedin's 1968 "Memorandum" to the West German Episcopal Conference | Ignatius InsightA Year of Crisis, Revisited | Hubert Jedin's 1968 Memorandum to the West German Episcopal Conference | Ignatius Insight

Many people have wondered in our day if the Catholic Church
was becoming "Protestantized", but sometimes this has been only a
vague feeling of unease or disgust after a Mass at their local parish on
Sunday.

The following document is an astounding one because as early
as 1968 one of the greatest Catholic Church historians sounded the alarm in no
uncertain terms. Monsignor Hubert Jedin was the author of many books on church history,
most notably his definitive History of the Council of Trent in four volumes. He knew both Trent and the
Reformation well from a lifetime of research and writing on the topic. Mgsr. Jedin also published a general ten-volume History of the Church which was translated into English the year after his
death in 1981.

The following version/translation of Jedin's Memorandum may strike Americans as more relevant than the
day it was written and presented to the West German bishops. The deep insight
of Jedin into the contemporary situation of the Church confirms what many of us
have suspected but have been unable to express as well as he did.

Perhaps the most outstanding Church historian of the
Catholic world died July 16, 1980, in Bonn, then West Germany. He was born June
17, 1900, in Breslau [1], Silesia, and ordained a priest on March 2, 1924.
Since his mother was a Jewish Catholic convert, the Gestapo arrested Father
Jedin in 1938, but he later managed to get released. He spent the next ten
years, 1939-1949, in Rome researching history of the Council of Trent upon
which he became the acknowledged expert. This exhaustive and original study of
the primary source documents resulted in the publication of four large volumes
of The History of the Council of Trent,
only the first two of which have yet appeared in English. Many smaller studies
were also published such as his 1947 Papal Legate at the Council of
Trent: Cardinal Seripando. He was a
lifelong specialist on councils and on Trent in particular.

After the announcement by Pope John XXIII that an ecumenical
council would be held, Jedin published in 1959 his Ecumenical Councils of
the Catholic Church: An Historical Outline
(English tr. 1960). Then somewhat later as Vatican II was in session, in 1964,
he published Crisis and Closure of the Council of Trent (English tr. 1967). These were prepared for
seminarians and other interested students of ecclesiastical history who were
looking for some perspective on just what an ecumenical council was supposed to
be in the Catholic Church. But Jedin was also a generalist. He launched the
massive ten-volume series History of the Church under his own editorship. The series has been called
"the Fliche-Martin of our time" [2], and is considered a standard
reference. The tenth volume was at last translated into English in 1981, one
year after his death. Another of the projects which he supervised was the
cartographic church history, Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte. Die
christlichen Kirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart, published in German in 1970.

Jedin had to suspend his research for four years, 1962-1965,
in order to serve as peritus at the Second Vatican Council. Very few historians
of councils actually get to participate in one as he did! This also explains
the lengthy interval of time between the publication of his first two volumes
on Trent (1949, 1957) and the second two (1970, 1975). From 1949 to 1965 he was
a professor in Bonn; before and after those years he received many honorary
doctorates and other international awards and invitations. In 1970 Pope Paul VI
had offered him the position of Prefect of the Vatican Library, though Jedin
declined on the grounds of advancing age. Poor health during the 1970s
prevented him from making the kind of progress he wished, but in the end none
of his projected works were left incomplete.

The autobiographical book, Lebensbericht, appeared posthumously in 1984. This work outlines
his professional career and productivity rather than primarily providing us
with any "journal of a soul". Nonetheless it received negative
reviews in the United States from those who said Jedin had become too alarmed
and saddened toward the end of his life because of his conviction that Vatican
II had been either tragically misunderstood or, even worse, betrayed. He
communicated his frank opinion on the matter in 1968 to the West German
bishops, and he drew upon his knowledge of Trent and the Reformation process to
illustrate for them a similar process underway in the twentieth century. The
translation of this Memorandum is
presented here for the first time, perhaps belatedly, to benefit an American
readership.

Memorandum to the German Bishops' Conference

Bonn, September 16, 1968

(In the covering letter to Cardinal Dpfner as chairman of
the Bishops' Conference we read:

"I take the liberty to offer you enclosed a few
thoughts and opinions on the present situation in the Catholic Church, with the
request to present them to the members of the German Bishops' Conference.

My thoughts have grown out of long years of scholarly
concern with the history of the Church and were dictated by grave concern over
her present development. I am aware that many invited and uninvited advisors are
said to gain the ear of the bishops. Mindful of the admonition of the Second
Vatican Council about the co-responsibility of priests and laity, I feel
obligated in conscience to offer my knowledge and understanding, so that
evaluative categories will not be lacking to the venerable episcopate; for what
life-experience is to individuals, the history of the Church is for the
ecclesial community.")

MEMORANDUM

At present the Catholic Church is passing through a
difficult crisis. Germany, too, at least the region of the Federal Republic, is
gripped by it. This crisis became broadly visible during the "Catholic
Day" at Essen during which the encyclical Humanae vitae was regarded not as the starting-point but as an
object of anxiety and as the flash-point.

To us as historians especially concerned with the history of
the Reformation this crisis suggests parallels to those events which led in the
16th century to the schism of the Church in the West. It compels us to draw
inferences from historical experience for the evaluation of the present moment
in the Church.

I

Through the research of recent decades it is evident that
Martin Luther did not intend to split the Church when in the year 1517 he
presented his theses on indulgences to the appropriate bishops and later
published them. He renounced the authority of the Church in stages; in Leipzig
(1519) he even rejected the binding force of decisions by valid ecumenical
councils. And given the resulting resonance in the public sphere he himself did
not expect, he was finally tempted to refuse obedience to the condemnation--far
too long delayed in any case--of his 41 theses in the bull Exsurge Domine (1520). In some German dioceses this papal decision
was publicized inadequately, and in others not at all. The bishops considered
the "Luther-conflict" as a quarrel among theologians and overlooked
the fact that the foundations of the Catholic concept of the Church were not
only being shaken but destroyed. Apart from a few theologians, the faithful saw
in Luther the re-discoverer of the true faith and the restorer of the Church,
the liberator from the yoke which the Church had allegedly imposed upon them
until then.

The most passionate and most powerful champions of the
Lutheran movement were the "intellectuals" of that time, the
humanists, in whose eyes the current theology, scholasticism, was a hindrance
to progress. Also included were numerous priests and clerics who, fascinated by
the slogan "evangelical freedom", cast off the vows they had taken
upon themselves. Finally there were some from the classes threatened by social
decline, such as the imperial knighthood and the well-to-do farmers, throughout
a great part of Germany. The almost complete success of the Lutheran movement
in the years 1517-1525 was made possible by the control of that age's only
means of mass communication, the press, whose significance for the Church was
insufficiently understood. People used to snatch the writings of Luther and the
countless pamphlets stamped with his ideas right out of the hands of the
book-sellers. They spoke the language of the people and were read, even
devoured. The few who issued warnings were, to be sure, more clear-sighted as
theologians, but weaker as propagandists. They remained unread and were
regarded as "reactionaries". Those responsible for the church's
magisterium, the pope and the bishops, were silent; the repeatedly requested
and longed-for council never materialized. Uncertainty in regard to the faith
persisted.

Without wishing in the least to explain away the mistakes
and oversights committed by the Roman curia at that time and subsequently, the
passivity of the German episcopate must be admitted. They were not sufficiently
trained theologically, and with few exceptions the prince took precedence over
the bishop in leading the people. This state of affairs facilitated the nearly
unchecked progress of the Lutheran movement, and in fact this is what made it
possible in the first place. The German bishops thus missed their chance. Once
the majority of imperial cities and the princes had made Luther's cause their
own (after 1526), it was too late. By-passing the bishop, Lutheran rural
churches were erected and the urban clergy numerically increased. As the
Lutheran movement became organized and consolidated, it conducted itself as a
creed and bound itself together by a politico-military league. The schism in
the Church was a fact.

We know today that the inner process of schism, the
formation of a "Confession" (denomination), lasted not years but
decades. Melanchthon and Calvin claimed to be "Catholic" until the
end of their lives while the adherents of the old faith were calumniated as
"Papists". The faithful long clung to the Mass and to their saints,
and the church regulations introduced by the Lutheran magistrates took over
many Catholic customs--even processions and pilgrimages. The bulk of the simple
faithful never understood that the "Reformation" was not a reform of
the Church but the construction of a new church set up on a different basis. In
retrospect one must therefore maintain: the schism of the Church succeeded by
nothing so much as by the illusion that it did not exist. It was widespread in
Rome and in the German episcopate, among many theologians, among the majority
of clergymen and among the people.

The parallels between then and now are obvious. But one
essential difference exists: the schism in the Church in the 16th century,
since the end of the 1520s, was increasingly an affair of
"governments", and therefore of states. Today the state is indifferent
toward ecclesiastical events except in Communist regimes which put the Church
under heavy pressure. In those cases the signs of crisis discussed below are
either not present at all or found just minimally. They can only be found in
the Free World of the West where they profit from rebellion against the
so-called "establishment"

II

The Church's present crisis in Germany is in its innermost
essence, as in the 16th century, a matter of uncertainty and disorientation in
the faith. Protestant biblical criticism has broken into Catholic theology on a
broad front. The problem is not so much those who hold chairs of exegesis with
their rather nuanced statements as with their students and auditors who are
often insufficiently prepared theologically and philosophically and who accept
uncritically the views of radical Protestant theologians, e.g. Rudolph
Bultmann. They extend and coarsen the concepts to the point of polarization,
simplify them in their institutes and propagate them in conferences and courses
as well as in preaching. Under the cloak of hermeneutics the binding nature of
dogmatic definitions by ecumenical councils is called into question (e.g.
transubstantiation). The bond of theology to the magisterium is loosened, if
not altogether denied, and the magisterium itself depreciated and even
ridiculed. Today's hostility and contempt for authority which is so widespread
among the younger generation and is supported by many parents and educators,
abets this dissolution of the Catholic concept of the Church, and consequently
the idea of religious obedience.

The question, "Is there anything still Catholic?"
is not just something asked only by older and so-called "traditional"
Catholics, but comes from the very core of sincere and genuine believers. This
too was brought about not just by the constant change of liturgical forms and
the ever more encompassing capriciousness in liturgy, but is the result of real
uncertainty and the need for knowledge. Today's modern communications media are
incomparably more powerful than those of the 16th century. Almost without
exception they have become dominated by intellectuals who frequently,
especially if they are Catholic, want the "new" for its own sake, as
the supposedly "progressive" thing to do. They promote and propagate
it regardless of the truth-content. In their speech and style of expression
they cater to the inclination of the younger generation for slogans
("democratizing the Church"), and they judge this agitation to be
harmless to their religious formation, or they explain it away, and in general
they comment upon Church events in a distorted way. They make (or better, they
manipulate) "public opinion" against which only a few among the many
millions of television watchers are capable of validly forming their own
opinion. The constant saturation of the faithful by a communications media
controlled by the ecclesiastical "Left" has the effect of altering
their relation to the Church and has indeed already changed it. This
disorientation makes progress month by month. The longer it lasts, the greater
will be the danger of a schism in the Church, as in the 16th century. Or, what
could be even worse, a complete estrangement from the Church, just as
individual raindrops disappear in the dry sand.

I do not believe that the founding and support of
conservative, traditionalist groups and movements ("Una Voce",
"Nunc et Semper" and the like) is the right way to prevent the schism
or revolt threatening the Church. To leave the fight against the abuses of the
ecclesiastical "Left" to an ecclesiastical "Right" would be
a fundamental abdication by the authorities. In contrast to the Protestant
church-communities, the Catholic Church possesses authority since her structure
is based on divine law. The bishops must speak out clearly and act decisively,
rising above public opinion. If they act, and act quickly, it will become
evident that they still have the great mass of the Catholic faithful behind
them.

Had the German bishops in the first years of the 16th
century's schism from the faith joined together for common action before the
Reformation became political, the schism in the Church, even if it were not
totally prevented, could quite possibly have been reduced to a mere
splintering. The episcopate of today is no longer burdened and obstructed by
defective theological education or by its social place and the resulting
entanglements in politics. The constitution Lumen gentium has conferred on them thorough-going rights and
opportunities, but also a higher responsibility for the integrity of the faith
than ever before. They cannot wait for the intervention of higher authorities,
but must act themselves. Where the public communications media construct walls
of silence or permit one to observe daily events only through distorted lenses,
a word of clarification and corresponding action is doubly indispensable. To
every Catholic and non-Catholic it must be made clear that the bishops consider
the unabridged truth and care for the good of the faithful their first and
highest duty.

III

Some concrete examples may illustrate how one might imagine
this "action".

1. The canonical mission of professors of higher education
and teachers of religion, who plainly teach errors of faith, should be
withdrawn. Conflicts arising from this with state officials and with the
pressure-groups of the "Left" must be accepted.

Priests and chaplains who come into open opposition to
Church discipline in their teaching or through their conduct (e.g. in regard to
the Holy Eucharist) are to be suspended, even if there results from this a
temporarily severe shortage in pastoral care.

One should not be afraid of making "martyrs" of
them. It is necessary to set an example--but in so doing it will be important
to take care that the transition to a secular occupation be facilitated by
providing suitable help for those affected.

2. No candidate for priestly office should be ordained
unless he explicitly and unconditionally acknowledges the duties of the
priesthood and undertakes canonical obedience. Above all, the authors of
declarations against celibacy, against papal and episcopal teaching on
doctrine, the instigators of revolts and those who try to coerce unacceptable
changes in monasteries and seminaries, are to be excluded from ordination.

It is better to have many fewer priests and to look after
vacant parishes in a temporary and improvised fashion through ordination of
older, married men as deacons, than for rebellious or demagogic priests to lead
parishes astray.

3. The education of "lay-theologians" must be supervised
with much greater vigilance, and the canonical mission must be bestowed more
carefully. A portion of this group is inspiring the ecclesiastical
"Left" and---knowingly or unknowingly---is promoting uncertainty and
confusion about the faith.

4. It must be impressed on the entire clergy that liturgy is
not a free-style composition by the parish assembly, but a divine service
regulated by the Church. The chaotic changes in the liturgy have already gone
so far that even the words of consecration are being changed by individual
clerics without authorization. The Latin Mass, the bond of unity of the
universal Church, should not be allowed to perish now that the world is
becoming so much smaller. In every church with several Sunday services, one
Latin Mass should regularly remain. It will, as experience shows, be well
attended. [3]

5. In teaching style, slogans like "democratizing the
Church" or "critical Catholicism" and the like must be rejected
because of the errors intermingled within them. The teaching of the Church from
the basis of the constitution Lumen gentium must be inculcated. The traditional principles of
"subsidiarity" and "solidarity" fully suffice to guarantee
the participation of the laity in the accomplishment of its apostolic mission.
One should not be afraid to retain the concept "authority" and
"obedience" in the vocabulary of the Church.

6. The movement which is tending not toward a correctly
understood "aggiornamento" but (as in the 16th century) toward a
Church-revolution, is presumably, at least for the moment, organized less than
some might suppose or fear. But we may not dismiss the well-founded impression
that this revolutionary movement has a core-organization within Catholicism. In
this regard it would be wise to examine without narrow-mindedness but also
without illusion what function the Catholic student organizations have. And
quite likely it would be wise to intervene immediately: better the abolition of
the student organizations and a return to the appointment of individual
chaplains for the students, as four decades ago, than the spread of the
destruction of church communities.

The same goes for the Union of German Catholic Youth and the
choice of diocesan and deanery youth-ministers.

7. Finally, one cannot overlook the fact that the media--the
radio and television establishment, including the church media--with very few
exceptions, are oriented toward the "Left". Their control cannot be
wrested from them overnight. However, it is important to implement a well-conceived
plan over the long run and above all not to be satisfied with a one-time
politically motivated concession from them. Rather, ongoing contact must be
maintained between, on the one hand, the publicists and journalists and, on the
other, qualified ecclesiastical officials.

8. The demand for "democratizing" church
newspapers raised at the Essen Catholic Day should not be complied with, for
thereby the last vestige of a press not controlled by the ecclesiastical
"Left" would be lost. The only possibility still remaining for Church
authorities to inform the faithful would fall outside the sphere of the Church.

IV

In the parallels pointed out above and the sample proposals
derived from them, I have taken into consideration that in present-day church
developments there are at work strong religious forces not unlike those in the
16th century movement enkindled by Luther. The saying of St. Augustine applies
to both of them: "Nulla porro falsa doctrina est, quae non aliqua vera
intermisceat." ("There is no false doctrine without some truth
intermingled." Quaest. ev. II 40.) I am convinced that the true and the
good which has emerged from the new awakening of the Church at the Council and
through the Council up to today can only be fruitful if it is separated from
error.

The longer the painful operation is put off, the greater
will be the danger that valuable sources of strength are going to be lost
because they will be amalgamated with error. Then there will occur among us not
only a separation from the Church, but a defection from Christianity itself.

The more clearly the bishops speak and the more decisively
they act, the greater the chance to maintain the movement of awakening within
the Church and thereby to uphold the Church.

Hubert Jedin

16 September 1968

This article was originally published, in a slightly
different form, in Homiletic and Pastoral Review, vol. XCII, no. 2 (November 1991): 22-28. [The article was referred to
in the December 1992 Fellowship of Catholic Scholars Newsletter, 19-20.]

ENDNOTES:

[1] After World War II this became Polish territory and
today the city is called Wrocław.

[2] See Augustin Fliche and Victor Martin, Histoire de
l'glise depuis les origines jusqu' nos jours,
Vols. I-XXI (Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1934-1952); English tr. A
History of the Catholic Church (London-St.
Louis, 2nd ed. 1956). This series was originally planned in twenty-six volumes,
but never completed. Martin died in 1945 and Fliche in 1951. Between the
appearance of the first volume in 1934 and the year of Fliche's death, only
twenty volumes were published, of which Fliche personally edited fifteen. In
1952 Roger Aubert published vol. 21, and some years later an Italian team
published a vol. 22 which is not available in French or English. Works of this
scope are so ambitious as to be nearly impossible in our age of specialization.
Nevertheless, as a general church history, Fliche-Martin is considered a
classic.

[3] On this point see Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the
Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville: The
Liturgical Press, 1990) pp. 283-284. The somewhat naive view of the Prefect of
the S.C.D.W. may well be contrasted with Jedin's historical sense.